Absolute Space

[didds]

Bear with me - Physics and maths faxcinate me but I'm really not very good it them and certainly am not very intuitive!

For Xmas my son bought me a"Why does E=MC squared" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. The opening chapter coveres "what is space and time". Its so far pitched pretty much perfectly for me

Said chapter deal with the concepts of relatove and absolute movement etc., and I get that absolute space is difficult to prove so "we" ignore it all.

One thing in the chapter made me think (so arguable Cox and Forshaw have already succeeded with me )

The point is made that at any momet whilst standin still we are in fact moving around the centre of the earth, moving around the sun, moving around the solar system, moving further and further apart form similar galaxies. Whilst "the big bang" isn't discussed in this chapter I figure that this moving apart is down to the big bang stuff whereby matter from TBB is moving ever away from its origin ie wherte TBB occurred>

which is where my thought come sin...

IF you could stand at the very position of where TBB occurred - would you now have absolute space? EVERYTHING now has an absolute place relative to a fixed place? Notwithstanding I suppose everything getting further and further away... (I may have now broken my own thought!).

And if you could stand at such a place would everything you can see (pin prcks of light to the naked eye) never actually move ... because the light is in a straight line to that point always, anjd any "spinning" is not visible to the naked eye over such vast distances?

This now reminds me of a Jim Al-Khalili book I have that I need to goa nd find

cheers

didds

[Itsallaguess]

As an aside, I remember someone saying on the radio one day that they thought 'gravity' was God calling the Devil back to him.....

I have a great interest in science and space-related themes, and whilst I'm not at all religious, I thought this idea was really quite profound, and had a real circularity about it that really would explain a few things....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

p.s.When I was growing up, and I started to take an interest in The Big Bang, and the 'expanding space' idea, I used to ask my Dad lots of questions about it, as kids do.

My Dad always seemed very sceptical of the idea, asking that if space was 'expanding', what would happen if you stood at the outer edge and simply stepped further out.....

[Dod101]

E=MC squared is so old hat nowadays! What you and son should be doing is reading Carlo Rovelli on quantum physics. It brings us right up to date on Einstein and others and I think is easier to follow than anything that Brian Cox has written.

I have kind of 'got' Einstein and Relativity but quantum physics is mind bending. Even although it is a translation, his style of writing is very approachable and only occasionally did I really need to wonder what he was getting at.

Dod

[XFool]

IF you could stand at the very position of where TBB occurred - would you now have absolute space? EVERYTHING now has an absolute place relative to a fixed place? Notwithstanding I suppose everything getting further and further away... (I may have now broken my own thought!).

And if you could stand at such a place would everything you can see (pin prcks of light to the naked eye) never actually move ... because the light is in a straight line to that point always, anjd any "spinning" is not visible to the naked eye over such vast distances?

You are already standing at the very position where the Big Bang occurred, as am I!

The Big Bang happened 'everywhere' in our universe, since our entire universe - and that includes space and time - came into existence due to the BB. There is no separate 'centre' of the universe or of the Big Bang, all of it is where it happened. So that doesn't really help.

[BBLSP1]

Imagine a 2-dimensional world comprising spots on a small balloon. If the balloon is made to expand, all the spots move further away from each other. We live and observe in the 3-dimensional equivalent of that.

[Dod101]

Mass is a illusion m = energy divided by a big constant number (speed of light squared). Takes a lot of entangled energy to create a little bit of apparent mass.

No. mass = energy multiplied by the speed of light squared

Dod

[didds]

Mass is a illusion m = energy divided by a big constant number (speed of light squared). Takes a lot of entangled energy to create a little bit of apparent mass.

No. mass = energy multiplied by the speed of light squared

Dod

If E=MC**2

then surely

M = E/C**2 ?

didds

[Dod101]

Bloody stupid fellow! (That's me I am talking about) Of course you are right. My apologies. The trouble is that we can usually measure mass and we know the constant. The whole idea is that we are trying to derive the energy, but I will go back to sleep. Before I do, I seriously recommend reading Carlo Rovelli. It adds to what is covered in the Brian Cox book and to me is much more clearly written.

Dod

[XFool]

Before I do, I seriously recommend reading Carlo Rovelli. It adds to what is covered in the Brian Cox book and to me is much more clearly written.

I agree about the quality of writing in Carlo Rovelli's (translated) book. Though it does cover different ground; his interpretation of the quantum version of reality.

I read the Cox and Forshaw book and have to confess it didn't really do it for me, unfortunately. That might just be me, of course.

IMO the eternal problem for ordinary people about grasping Special Relativity is that:

1. It is very simple

2. It is very hard to understand intuitively - because it completely counters all the physical intuitions are brains come wired up with.

[didds]

I seriously recommend reading Carlo Rovelli. It adds to what is covered in the Brian Cox book and to me is much more clearly written.

Dod

This one Dod?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Brief-Le ... 0241235960

didds

[XFool]

I seriously recommend reading Carlo Rovelli. It adds to what is covered in the Brian Cox book and to me is much more clearly written.

This one Dod?

He has written several books. I had this one in mind: 'REALITY IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS' - Carlo Rovelli

Penguin Books

[Dod101]

I seriously recommend reading Carlo Rovelli. It adds to what is covered in the Brian Cox book and to me is much more clearly written.

Dod

This one Dod?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Brief-Le ... 0241235960

didds

Your one is a sort of primer. I have it as well. The book I was thinking of is Reality is not What it Seems. So there are two books. Reality is not What it Seems is very good I think and whatever else it is clearly and very well written. The ideas are not that easy to grasp but when I started thinking about them I could more or less grasp most of it and it is by a long way the best book I have read on quantum physics and quantum gravity. As a writer I think Rovelli is far ahead of Brian Cox who I have never really taken to. BTW I have no special knowledge of the subject although I have got a general maths degree.

Dod

[moorfield]

Imagine a 2-dimensional world comprising spots on a small balloon. If the balloon is made to expand, all the spots move further away from each other. We live and observe in the 3-dimensional equivalent of that.

Certainly this is the model I remember from university days. Could never get my head around the 3-D version.

There is a theory that the speed of light itself has not been constant at all times phases of the universe's development (think of the balloon being blown up with different lengths of breath).

[Stonge]

The key question is how do things know where they are, or alternatively why are things where they are?

Pathetic analogy - tree on a TV screen, try taking it off the screen.

So... a quantum particle is a manifestation of behaviour of the universe in one or more places. Or... things aren't in the universe: things are the universe. This gives an absolute frame of reference even if nobody seems to have bothered to work it out yet.

Though after Brexit who knows what will happen.

[Itsallaguess]

It's also well known that time itself is not a constant in our universe.

This was proven to me as recently as last Sunday afternoon, when I personally witnessed the final five minutes of the Liverpool v City match become some sort of warped event-horizon that stretched the very fabric of space and time, causing each single minute to last a brazillian seconds.......

I'm still not quite sure if it ended at all.......

Itsallaguess

[stewamax]

Though after Brexit who knows what will happen.

We will have to go back to Imperial Measures for a start since the Standard Kilogram is stored in a laboratory in St Cloud and we will lose access to it ("go away; its ours").
But - hold on - oh no - the pound (mass) is now officially defined in terms of the kilogram.
So we will need a new one-pound standard chunk of platinum-iridium stored in the Tower of London guarded by a Yeoman Warder of the Pound.

On the bright side I will be able to throw away the bathroom scales.

[GoSeigen]

Though after Brexit who knows what will happen.

But - hold on - oh no - the pound (mass) is now officially defined in terms of the kilogram.
So we will need a new one-pound standard chunk of platinum-iridium stored in the Tower of London guarded by a Yeoman Warder of the Pound.

More than happy to go back to when a pound was 240 silver sterlings, that collectively weighed a Pound of silver. I'll be happy to take a alternative Kg approximation without having to resort to absolute precision.

So much easier, and meaningful rather than the fractal banking system we endure today.

Yeah, and hopefully everybody over the age of 65 has already died off from a nasty disease or starvation, nostalgically clutching their bags of silver!

Base 12 was convenient also, a dozen eggs could be split equally 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 ways.

It wasn't base 12, it was base 10, and still is.

GS

[XFool]

Though after Brexit who knows what will happen.

But - hold on - oh no - the pound (mass) is now officially defined in terms of the kilogram.
So we will need a new one-pound standard chunk of platinum-iridium stored in the Tower of London guarded by a Yeoman Warder of the Pound.

More than happy to go back to when a pound was 240 silver sterlings, that collectively weighed a Pound of silver. I'll be happy to take a alternative Kg approximation without having to resort to absolute precision.

"Bring back the Ten Bob note!"

Base 12 was convenient also, a dozen eggs could be split equally 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 ways.

The 'old system' used a variety of (often mixed) bases, including binary. We still use something related to base 12 with how we measure time and angles. Though in the latter case the trend is clearly in favour of decimal representation of degrees etc.

[stewamax]

The French Revolution ushered in decimal time, with 10 hour days and 100 minutes to the hour. Surprisingly it was not popular, although those who didn't clap loudly possibly had an enforced appointment with M. Guillotine.

All time-zones still being offset from GMT must really rankle them, and I worry about this week's visit from President Macron: "You can borrow our length of embroidery showing the mighty French steamroller crushing the moribund English. In return you will adopt a new system of decimal time and with the Élysée Palace as the meridian".

[colin]

IF you could stand at the very position of where TBB occurred - would you now have absolute space? EVERYTHING now has an absolute place relative to a fixed place? Notwithstanding I suppose everything getting further and further away... (I may have now broken my own thought!).

I have no idea if this is the currently accepted science or not but there are some very pretty pictures.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-universe-is-expanding-at-what-point-is-it-expanding-from

No Brian Cox has never really explained anything adequately to me either.